Forum:What system ARE we using for voting?
The title says it all. Straw poll or discussion Votes It's hard to put a vote about voting in a voting article =P Use Straw Polls #-- 08:32, February 20, 2012 (UTC) # I was planning to make something similar to this in a week or so when I'm more active- I've been seeing the old format used more and more lately. Ok, reasons- #* It looks much cleaner. You can see straight away who's voting for what, and how many are on each side. It isn't a massive indecipherable wall of text, or in the rare cases where there is sectioning, it doesn't have a massive group of people bolding the word "support" in the support section, which is just plain stupid. #* It's easier- you see a clear consensus, you're done. #* Most importantly- we're all meant to be equal on the wiki, so why shouldn't our votes all count equally? Sure, stating why you're voting for what you are is good, and it may even convince people to vote with you, but at the end of the day, one vote should count as one vote. 11:16, February 20, 2012 (UTC) Use Discussion (with headings so it's easy to read) #We had the forum about it, and I believe this is the best way. #Per below. 23:56, February 20, 2012 (UTC) #Most of the time, we don't need headings, like for minor discussions about little things that need to be resolved. But for big important discussions (and, of course, straw polls), headings are cleaner. FB100Z • talk • 05:36, February 23, 2012 (UTC) Comments We may as well just use whatever suits the situations, which is always a mixture of the two. Using a mixture of the structure of straw polls but having discussions and detailed reasons makes it easier to see what the community wants. (Unlike just big discussions which are a nightmare to follow, and polls on their own which can become like BoTM (aka, hey random person vote me!) - CJC 08:52, February 20, 2012 (UTC) * And don't even think of changing the voting format- the "new" system of voting was put through using that system, if we're doing a vote to put it back, it's only fair to use the old system :) 11:16, February 20, 2012 (UTC) **I agree with CJC that it depends what suits the situation. Things like this would need a straw poll I think. There may be some forums were idea that a person wants help with an idea then want implemented, which should be discussed. 15:45, February 20, 2012 (UTC) *'Can someone try and find the old forum to link to it?' It tried, but failed. Can anyone remember the title? ** link 21:18, February 20, 2012 (UTC) *I forgot to put a reason on my vote,.. Really it's cleaner and not a mass debate, Just answers. :I agree with Berry and CJC - it really depends on the vote. If it's a mere matter of styling, then a straw poll would be better. If it's a ideological forum, then the other... discussion... thing... uh... method of voting would work better. 23:13, February 20, 2012 (UTC) *Agree that it should depend on the situation. The issue with the old system is that we would have a discussion and then a vote on forums... when only the discussion is required. Some things - BoTM, etc - are better as a straw poll, but basically everything else works better if people are actually thinking about what they are saying. 23:56, February 20, 2012 (UTC) Minimum combined Mainspace/Template/Review/Custom editcount before being able to vote * Obviously if it's voted to use the discussion system, this vote would be disregarded, even if it's voted to have a minimum votecount. Bring it back # Helps prevent sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and things like this from happening. Also if user can't be bothered helping the content of the wiki to some degree, why should they be able to influence how everyone on the site does things? 01:59, February 21, 2012 (UTC) # -- 02:05, February 21, 2012 (UTC) # 02:36, February 21, 2012 (UTC) Don't bring it back * - CJC 19:48, February 23, 2012 (UTC) If you voted to bring it back... Set minimum to 100 edits # Wouldn't be opposed to having something a bit lower though 01:59, February 21, 2012 (UTC) Set minimum to 70 edits # 70 edits. -- 02:05, February 21, 2012 (UTC) # I'm okay with anything over fifty though 02:37, February 21, 2012 (UTC) # This one seems to have the most momentum. Set minimum to 50 edits Comments * Feel free to add any other number of edits in the above section if you want to. 01:59, February 21, 2012 (UTC) Comments Comments Comments Seriously? FB100Z • talk • 03:09, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :What? I thought you were going to do a 69 edits section, saying that someone with 69 edits isn't very much less experienced than someone with 70. I almost did it for you, but left it... 23:39, February 22, 2012 (UTC) Comments My proposal: # Straw polls for BotM, colors of infoboxes, etc. # Freeform discussion for minor forum decisions. # "Headinged" discussion for major forum decisions. (Yes, I made that word up. Yes, it isn't a word. Yes, that makes me an idiot.) Note that the last two are essentially the same thing; the freeform and headinged discussions are equivalent except for their layout. Therefore, this proposal doesn't change any part of our system other than appearance. This is more of a forced convention than a mandate. You will not be flogged in public for starting a headinged discussion on a minor issue, or for starting a freeform discussion on a major issue. It's just a practice we should follow. Also, edit counts suck canal water. They bite newbies, encourage community cabalism, and make things more complex than they should be. I'm tempted to remove that whole section, but I know I'd get flogged in public for doing that, so I won't. FB100Z • talk • 05:49, February 23, 2012 (UTC) :The issue is that with a system like straw polls, common sense can't be taken into account so you need such a requirement to stop sock/meat puppetry. 14:51, February 23, 2012 (UTC) * Something else is, Heaps of good users may not have 100 or less, but may be very good users. -- 09:34, March 28, 2012 (UTC) *RFC ~ CJC 22:16, April 13, 2012 (UTC)